I was sort of baffled by the black guy that quoted John Taylor

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Tex

An investigator has to decide if he believes that God calls and directs prophets today, despite their failings. Sometimes that includes accepting policies and doctrines we do not understand. Someone considering membership in the church needs to become familiar with the phrase, "some things we just don't know" because we have to use it a lot ... and that includes the blacks issue.

***

That's not to say the intellectual persuasion method doesn't work for some people--obviously it does, as Sleeping has pointed out. Good for them. Personally I don't necessarily consider it a good practice, all the same.

I think the above is a correct statement, but I disagree with the way you are applying it. We don't simply point someone to Moroni's challenge, tell them to pray about the BOM without trying to resolve their doubts.

Q: "But who is Moroni?"

A: "Don't worry about that, knowledge is not the point, listen to your heart."

I know my example is absurd, but the missionaries, notwithstanding the demise of the discussions, are regurgitating a great deal of information that has been very careful couched for the purpose of resolving people's question's and concerns. Of course we want to give people answers to questions if we can. But we both know that there are enough ambiguities in doctrine that many of the answers will begin with "Well we think that" and end with "but we're not completely certain."

You and I don't disagree about the second statement there, we are disagreeing about the value and cotent of the first statement. I think there is value in the first statement, that is, in telling someone that as best we can tell the reason is this, though there is little if any authority on this point. We do this all the time explaining polygamy.

I can appreciate your skepticism about what you are calling the "intellectual method" because to the extent you are troubled by any of these issues, you accept them on faith. I do exactly this as well, but I do so with the benefit of a lifetime of foundation in the church and, for me, these issues really are "behind us." But for many (read here basically anyone who is black) this is a CENTRAL issue and while the explanation doesn't need to be perfect, as long as it remains "we don't know" and nothing more, we will continue to have extremely few black members. And yes, having them is a worthy goal, IMO. It may well be that, as with polygamy, enough time will pass that future generations can just look back and explain with a shrug that that was along time ago. Someday that will be a more satisfying answer than it is now. In the mean time, it would certainly help if we had something more.

I agree with that I think your premise is, that is that a testimony is established by the spirit rather than any set of facts or argument, but there have to be bones to hang the meat on. The explanation doesn't have to be perfect, but neither should it be so wonting in detail or offensive to common sense that a person of reasonable intelligence immediately dismisses it. In the absense of a good explanation (which as is being suggested here is very doable) people are left to infer their worst suspicions. This is an issue we can get out in front of, so to speak, without abandoning faith for reason.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I think the above is a correct statement, but I disagree with the way you are applying it. We don't simply point someone to Moroni's challenge, tell them to pray about the BOM without trying to resolve their doubts.

...

I agree with that I think your premise is, that is that a testimony is established by the spirit rather than any set of facts or argument, but there have to be bones to hang the meat on. The explanation doesn't have to be perfect, but neither should it be so wonting in detail or offensive to common sense that a person of reasonable intelligence immediately dismisses it. In the absense of a good explanation (which as is being suggested here is very doable) people are left to infer their worst suspicions. This is an issue we can get out in front of, so to speak, without abandoning faith for reason.

I can see where you're coming from, and as I said earlier, I allow that there are people with whom it might be successful. I'm not so critical of the approach that I think it should never be tried.

But here's why I have a (perhaps disproportionate) emphasis on the faith aspect of conversion. You gave me an absurd example, let me give you one in return. The story is told of an elder in my mission who was faced with an investigator who accepted all the doctrines of the church, save one: she couldn't come to terms with completely rejecting reincarnation. Try as the elders might, she could not be persuaded that the idea was not real, and in such a state she was not prepared for baptism.

Finally, in what I'm sure he thought was a stroke of inspiration, the elder read to her from the 9th Article of Faith, indicating that God would "yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." Perhaps, said the elder, reincarnation was one of those doctrines yet to be revealed. The woman's concern was satisfied, and a baptismal date was set. Later during an interview, the error was caught by the zone leader, if I remember right, and the baptism was postponed.

Absurd? Of course. But I worry in our effort to satisfy the intellectual curiosity (or obsession) of an investigator, we rob them of that opportunity to exercise faith. No one is going to be properly brought into the church unaware of who Moroni was, or what he taught. But the history of blacks and the priesthood is entirely ancillary to church membership; yes, even for a black man.

In light of what President Hinckley recently said, quoted in this very thread, that must necessarily be sufficient. You can say, "well, easy for you to say ... you're white!" Maybe. But the truth is, nearly everyone has a doctrine or a policy or a historical oddity they struggle with. The trick is to not lose your faith over it.

The earlier the investigator learns that lesson, the better.

My 2 cents.

[Black Diamond Bay]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

I had not heard that quote, but having studied many others I've little doubt it's true. What I find baffling is your response here.

Well as someone else pointed out further along he was probably interviewed for hours and it came up at some point in the conversation there. However, I probably was a bit harsh in my judgment that of all the things he could have said he chose to say something about Pres. Taylor being a racist. I stand corrected, I'm sure that wasn't how things actually went down, and I should have taken more time to think about that before posting. My apologies.

[Archaea]

I don't understand Tex's approach.

Nobody is saying belief in Gospel principles doesn't ultimately require leaps of faith and spiritual witnesses. Without which, there is no faith.

However, Tex's approach appears to be, no question should be answered and the evangelical approach of crying and shouting "I Believe!" is all that is necessary.

And Tex doesn't appear to be very familiar with persons of color who might view the past racist views of leaders with a different light than he who was never excluded from full blessings and participation. It is interesting that one never cut off, can easily dismiss the misgivings of somebody struggling to reach the light.

There will become stopping points where one must choose to believe, choose not to believe, or choose to suspend determination pending further information.

In fact, those who do not look for rational arguments are likely to fall harder and faster, than those who simply live by a euphoric rush of Pentacostal emotion.

[Indy Coug]

Sometimes, I feel like this historical handwringing that goes on is akin to someone complaining about how they don't like DOS when their PC is running Windows XP.

Most of this stuff was several versions ago and is no longer a part of the current religious product.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by Black Diamond Bay

Well as someone else pointed out further along he was probably interviewed for hours and it came up at some point in the conversation there. However, I probably was a bit harsh in my judgment that of all the things he could have said he chose to say something about Pres. Taylor being a racist. I stand corrected, I'm sure that wasn't how things actually went down, and I should have taken more time to think about that before posting. My apologies.

I think his main point was that institutionally the church was racist right on up to it's head. I don't think he could have driven his point home any better.

His point brings up a good question. When did the standard answer become "we don't know why?" versus fence sitters, mark of Cain, etc...?

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Sometimes, I feel like this historical handwringing that goes on is akin to someone complaining about how they don't like DOS when their PC is running Windows XP.

Most of this stuff was several versions ago and is no longer a part of the current religious product.

Well if the XP tech support guys were still getting questions about DOS 30 years later they'd put some effort into their answers as well.

[BlueHair]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Sometimes, I feel like this historical handwringing that goes on is akin to someone complaining about how they don't like DOS when their PC is running Windows XP.

Most of this stuff was several versions ago and is no longer a part of the current religious product.

I will certainly agree that today's version of the church is the best so far. The problem is when you make people pray that the old version is true, you might run into a snag. I would be able to accept that Windows XP is a good operating system if someone didn't make me agree that DOS was good. Now, I'm sure 20 years from now whatever we run on our home computers (if we even have home computers) will be better than XP, then XP will suck. I guess it's a matter of timing. That begs the next question. Do people that heard the gospel back in the racist days get another chance to accept it since the version they rejected was so obviously flawed? Twenty years from now if the church changes drastically again, will the people that reject it today get another chance?

[BlueHair]

Was the church "true" when they denied the blacks the priesthood? I would submit that it wasn't true if you are black. That leads me to another one of my beliefs that most people will disagree with me on. To me, religion is like a fraternity at a school. You may have different practices, but the end desire is to graduate. I like to think God will accept anyone of any religion that earnestly desires to "go to heaven" and acts accordingly. It seems silly to me that he would care where you were baptized, who baptized you, or whether you got married in a temple rather than a cathedral. Rituals seem so unimportant in my view. I don't mean that as an insult to anyone who believes otherwise. I'm just expressing my point of view.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

Was the church "true" when they denied the blacks the priesthood? I would submit that it wasn't true if you are black. That leads me to another one of my beliefs that most people will disagree with me on. To me, religion is like a fraternity at a school. You may have different practices, but the end desire is to graduate. I like to think God will accept anyone of any religion that earnestly desires to "go to heaven" and acts accordingly. It seems silly to me that he would care where you were baptized, who baptized you, or whether you got married in a temple rather than a cathedral. Rituals seem so unimportant in my view. I don't mean that as an insult to anyone who believes otherwise. I'm just expressing my point of view.

This is appears to be a simplistic view of life, but if it rests well with you, that's fine.

A more empirical view would be to sythesize what historically religions have taught, analyze what scholars believe and observe, employ various methodology to discover whether God exists and communicates. If he didn't exist, it wouldn't matter what we did.

If he does, then we should follow a method of discovering truth.

Many, many religious societies engage rituals for teaching truths, so either societies have had it wrong all along, or maybe, just maybe they are significant. To dismiss them out of hand, sure seems sloppy.

It's basically saying, well nothing really matters, God will accept everything.